Following
the arrest of their fellow practitioners over malpractice charges by the
Supreme Court’s ruling stemming from the death of a young mother during a
ceasarian section, waves of protests sent ripples throughout the nation. The
medical community staged a rally to support their fellow members, demanding the
ruling to be reviewed and the doctors be freed immediately.
They
feared the verdict would provide legal basis to criminalize doctors if a
patient dies in spite of their best efforts to uphold the highest standard of
ethical conduct to save patients’ life. For that reason, they were demanding
legal certainty and security while carrying out their medical practices.
The
Supreme Court found the three doctors; Dewa Ayu Sasiary Prawani, Hendy Siagian
and Hendry Simanjuntak, guilty of negligence resulting in death and sentenced them
to ten months in prison. They failed to receive the written consent of the
family or patient before conducting the surgery. It was the duty of doctors to
warn patients and families of known risks of a procedure or course of
treatment, popularly known as the duty of informed consent. Further aggravated
err; they forgot to check the patient’s vital signs with an electrocardiogram
(EKG).
In
their defense, they argued they had done their best efforts to save both mother
and child. Sadly, the mother died of heart failure by a gas embolism. There was
obviously a difference between deliberate acts of malice and non-intentional
mistakes, even though the outcome is fatal in both cases.
They
tried to save life, and not to take it. This difference means that they should
be treated completely differently and not be criminalized. The case criminally
charging the doctors over an error in administrative procedures is feared to
drive doctors away from the practice of medicine or interfere with patient
treatment and safety, some argued.
As
a result, the prospect of going to jail for something they did while trying
their best to treat a patient, will affect treatment decisions and hinder
improvements in care.
Meanwhile,
some legal experts say the verdict is a way to root out harmful errors. It’s
also handed down by a judge with high judicial integrity whose decisions are
perceived as accountable and just.
This
is to say that the professional class of doctors do no longer possess any
impunities if found guilty of negligence and malpractices towards patients and
which leads to a trial in a court of law.
In
addition, most patients do not have the knowledge to notice whether doctors
have properly diagnosed or treated their illnesses. Some have the courage to
lodge malpractices allegations, and end up waiting to settle out the court. But
many just accepted their ‘fate’ as the will of God.
Consequently,
most cases of malpractices went unpunished because some said due to “the
conspiracy of silence “demonstrated by doctors. That is almost gives the
medical professionals with impunity. Hence, the ruling is extremely rare and
possibly unprecedented in the medical community in this nation.
Nonetheless,
the growing unrest among medical community is perfectly understandable as
medical negligence or misadventure was and still remains a serious concern all
over the world, including in the developed countries. As in the case of euthanasia
and abortion, these problems have been one of the most debatable issues of
controversy in the United States and other developed countries over the past
decades. It is not just a medical ethical problem, but also having legal,
philosophical, religious and political dimension.
For
me personally, I have mixed feeling towards this uproar. I have my own bad and
good experience toward doctors. Many do their job great. The patients’
well-being and life is their number one priority. Only few dare to perform
reckless medical decision-making, and if such happenstance takes place, it
usually relates to financial circumstance; the poor uninsured patient often
receives poor-service.
Recently
my dad was admitted to the intensive care unit at our local hospital in Solo in
the dead of night due to hemorrhagic strokes (bleeds) resulted from a weakened
vessel that ruptures and bleeds into the surrounding brain. His whole body
paralyzed. He suffered difficulty to breathe due to lack of oxygen flowing to
his brain. He was pale as a corpse.
Once
he was admitted to an emergency room. The health personnel there without delay provided
their best health care treatment to save his life. Once, he was stabilized, the
nurse escorted my family to settle the administrative and financial procedures
for the next stage of an in-patient admission.
“Saving
life priority over financial hurdle” demonstrated by these health personnel had
saved my dad’s life.
Another
completely opposite story disclosed by one of my colleagues. His father
suffered similar attack. Yet, before admitted to the ER, the health personnel
requested him to provide legal guarantee of who would cover the medical
expenses. Once this was settled, then the patient was treated accordingly.
Many
poor families do not have such basic needs of health access due to financial
constraints. Often, such patients lose their life unnecessarily because they do
not receive proper medical treatment they urgently need. “Financial provision
is above the life saving policy.”
So,
in my opinion, the verdict of criminally charging the doctors can be a good
start to advocate for legislative reforms to define criminal conduct and
prohibit the criminalization of health care decisions made in good faith,
including cases involving allegations of medical malpractice.
The
rules should be clarified. If malpractice is discovered, they should be
punished accordingly. And if they had worked in accordance with the high
standard medical procedures, then they should walk free.
No comments:
Post a Comment